>I understand that rationale, but I don't agree with it. Just because the property is named "controls" doesn't mean that you could had any old object to a pageframe. There are other cases where you can't add some objects to controls with controls properties. All the naming convention does is make it much more difficult to iterate through a hierarchy.

IMHO, we are both right, only for different reasons! :) I meant that having a Pages collection makes it easier to iterate only the page objects. This doesn't exclude a Controls collection, but since there are no other objects that can be added to a PageFrame...

>If they had used "controls" for the collection property, then they could extend the valid container items without breaking any code.
>
>Also, off-topic a bit, why not add other objects to pageframes? Many times I'd liked to have added a label to a page frame, or even some controls that follow through all pages. Instead I have to add them to the form, but that breaks a logical hierarchy, IMO.

I disagree with having visual objects added to a PageFrame and visible in all pages, although, sometimes, it may be good. Personally, I wouldn't use such a feature, but, IMHO, the language should not prohibit it. Anyway, nobody stops you from creating a new Wish item on this subject.

I really don't see any reason for not adding non visual objects to a Page Frame. IMHO, this is a useless limitation.

Vlad